March, 2004Volume 6, Issue 1

The Influence of an Imagery Workshop on Athletes Use of Imagery

Jennifer Cumming University of Birmingham

Craig Hall University of Western Ontario

Chris Shambrook HeadStart Performance Consultants

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of a mental imagery workshop on athletes subsequent use of imagery. The participants were 36 female basketball players from three different levels of a high school basketball league: bantam, midget, and juvenile. Two different types of self-report measures were used to assess patterns of imagery use over a six week period following the workshop. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ; Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998) was given to the players prior to the start of the workshop, and three and six weeks following the workshop. The players also recorded the frequency, duration, content, and effectiveness of their imagery use in a training diary. Results revealed that the basketball players significantly increased their imagery use for the 6-week period following the workshop, and that the basketball players believed the imagery training to be both valuable and effective.

Introduction

Psychological skills have long been considered an integral part of what makes an athlete successful at elite levels. Perhaps one of the most widely researched and popular intervention strategies to date has been the use of mental imagery, which has been defined as a psychological activity that evokes physical characteristics of any object, person, or place that is absent from our perception (Denis, 1985). White and Hardy

52

(1998) suggest that through imagery we can be aware of seeing an image, feeling movements as an image, or experiencing an image of smell, taste or sounds without experiencing the real thing (p. 389). Furthermore, they distinguish imagery from dreaming because we are awake and conscious when we form an image (p. 389). Meta analyses examining the influence of imagery training on performance have found moderate effect sizes ranging from .48 (Feltz & Landers, 1983) to .68 (Hinshaw, 1991). These findings have led researchers to conclude that in comparison to no practice at all, imagery usually benefits performance (Durand, Hall, & Haslam, 1997). As a result, Hall (2001) has suggested that imagery can serve as an effective supplement to regular physical practice and as a substitute for some amounts of physical practice when athletes are unable to train.

In order to maximize the performance benefits derived from imagery training, researchers have turned to athletes as a valuable source of information on imagery use (for reviews, see Hall, 2001; Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999; Murphy & Martin, 2002). Key findings that have emerged from these studies can be organized into different categories known as the four Ws of imagery use; (1) where athletes use imagery (i.e., location), (2) when they use imagery (i.e., time frame), (3) what they image (i.e., content), and (4) why they image (i.e., function of imagery) (Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Weinberg, 2000). In sum, the research has found that athletes use imagery predominately at training and competition venues, as well as in a variety of locations such as school, work, and home. Athletes consistently report using imagery the most just prior to competing, as compared to during or after the competition, and the most during training sessions as compared to just prior to or following a training session. With respect to the content of their imagery (i.e., what they image), their imagery is generally accurate and vivid, and tends to be positive rather than negative in nature. Athletes report that their imagery incorporates different sensory experiences (i.e., visual, kinesthetic, and sometimes auditory and olfactory information), and they use both internal (first person) and external (third person) imagery perspectives to view the images. Furthermore, athletes tend to not only image the skills and strategies they perform in their sport, but also image other details such as the surroundings in which they are going to compete (e.g., competition venue, officials, teammates, and opposing players).

To explain the functions that imagery can serve in sport (i.e., why athletes use imagery), Paivio (1985) developed a simple analytical framework of imagery use. Within this framework, imagery is thought to serve both cognitive and motivational functions, and that each operate at either a specific or general level. The cognitive function of imagery revolves around imaging sport skills (e.g., cognitive specific imagery) or imaging game plans and strategies (e.g., cognitive general). While controlled studies have demonstrated that cognitive specific imagery it is an effective technique for enhancing learning and performance (see Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Hall, Schmidt, Durand, & Buckolz, 1994 for reviews), case study reports support the performance benefits of cognitive general imagery (Fenker & Lambiotte, 1987; Mace, Eastman, & Carroll, 1987; MacIntyre & Moran, 1996; Rushall, 1988; White & Hardy, 1998). In comparison, the motivational functions of imagery revolve around imaging the achievement of goals (e.g., motivational specific), imaging the regulation of anxiety and arousal levels (e.g.,

53

motivational general-arousal), and imaging mastery situations (e.g., motivational general-mastery). The motivational functions have also been linked to performance benefits by demonstrating increased motivation in athletes (Callow & Hardy, 2001), improved regulation of arousal (Hecker & Kaczor, 1988) and anxiety levels (Vadocz, Hall, & Moritz, 1997), as well as the enhanced capability to modify cognitions such as self-efficacy (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990) and self-confidence (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001).

Along with understanding how athletes can use psychological skills, such as imagery, more effectively, there has also been the acknowledgement in the sport psychology literature for the need to learn and practice these skills (Harris & Harris, 1984; Weinberg & Williams, 2001). Weinberg and Williams (2001) have suggested that psychological skills are developed in a similar manner to physical skills in that positive effects occur after extensive practice and application. Furthermore, Hall (2001) has suggested that imagery for the rehearsal of skills (i.e., cognitive specific) should be treated in a similar fashion to physical practice. Research examining imagery use, however, suggests that many athletes do not approach imagery practice in the same structured (i.e., plan duration and topics to be imaged) and regular (i.e., at a specific time each day) fashion that they approach physical practice (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall, Rodgers, & Barr, 1990; Rodgers, Hall, & Buckolz, 1991). In a systematic comparison of imagery use across different sports, Hall et al. (1990) found that athletes varied their imagery use throughout the year, and imagery sessions were not always structured, regular or of the same duration. Elite athletes, however, reported more structured imagery sessions then their non-elite counterparts. Similarly, Cumming and Hall (2002a) found that non-elite athletes perceived imagery as being less relevant to their competitive performance and practiced imagery much less than more elite athletes. Rodgers et al. (1991) found that adolescent figure skaters did not structure their imagery practice as they would their physical practice, and failed to practice imagery on a regular basis. Furthermore, the skaters believed that imagery had some value, but they didnt regard imagery as a skill worthy of practice on its own, or were unaware of how to best develop and use their imagery skills. Finally, Bull (1991) reported that athletes who chose not to participate in a psychological skills training program perceived these skills to be of little benefit to them. These findings suggest a need for education and training aimed at teaching athletes, especially developing ones, the values and benefits of using mental imagery. In addition, these athletes need to be shown how they may incorporate imagery more effectively into their training programs, with the ultimate goal being for them to use imagery in a more structured and regular fashion, and maximize their potential for performance benefits.

To this end, recommendations have been made regarding the delivery of a psychological skills training program to help athletes more effectively adopt and adhere to the training program. For example, Bull (1991) identified several barriers that prevented athletes from adhering to a psychological skills training program, which included lack of time, a need for an individualized package, and a disruptive home environment. Identification of these barriers led to the suggestion that athletes be provided with a program that was individualized in terms of content. Furthermore, adherence-related strategies should be offered, such as advice on time management, how

54

to structure and schedule psychological skills training, and how to integrate psychological skills into existing training programs (Shambrook & Bull, 1999).

Practitioners, however, must not just provide suggestions on adherence-related strategies, but also examine the success of these strategies by measuring the athletes actual adherence to the sport psychology service. As noted by Gould, Petlichkoff, Hodge, and Simons (1990), too often sport psychologists have blindly assumed that the educational or clinical services offered are successful (p. 250). But research has reported poor rates of adherence, even to relatively short mental skills training programs (e.g., Bull, 1991; Goul